A few more rounds of the gun control debate

Like any other combination of steel, wood and plastic, a gun is an inanimate object. It has no mind of its own [“O.C. voices add to debate on gun curbs,” Front Page, Jan. 5]. It cannot launch a projectile on its own or target anyone or anything. To become active it requires someone to load it, aim it and put the required pressure on the firing mechanism. Gun control advocates seem to ignore this fundamental requirement and believe that removing these inanimate objects from the hands of rational, law-abiding citizens will be the panacea for preventing gun violence.

However, this solution doesn't prevent these inanimate objects from falling into the hands of criminals and mentally disturbed persons who use them in pursuit of their objectives. Nor does it provide for enforcement of laws already on the books for the illegal use of a firearm.

A strict and severe punishment for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is needed. Too often, the punishment is a slap on the wrist and a “don't do that again” in the hope that it will suffice. Our judicial system all too often considers the appropriate penalty to be “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Constitution. Until the judiciary revises its thinking on this subject, crime will continue to flourish.

In the meantime, gun-control advocates would disarm the law-abiding populace and leave them at the mercy of the lawless.

Don Crane

Seal Beach

Americans, take a step away from your personal opinions about firearms to see the big picture about gun control. It is not about whether you approve or disapprove, like or dislike, fear or not fear guns; it is about our Constitution staying intact as it was intended to do.

Those with the power control those who have not. Our Constitution was written by Americans who had the foresight to protect us from those who would take our freedom away.

This is how it begins. Chip away at the Constitution bit by bit, and you as an American will live in a world like the countries early Americans fled. They uprooted and fought for independence and freedom.

Respect and honor your Constitution, and it will protect your freedom. Change it word by word, and you and your children will pay in a much deadlier way than any gun can harm.

A firearm is no more dangerous than a teacup unless it is misused by an evil, sick or misinformed individual. It would serve everyone to learn safe firearm handling. Understand what you fear, and the fear will disappear.

Our government needs to stop sending money to foreign countries that do us harm and bring back mental health care.

Marti Davis

Huntington Beach

Upon reading the extensive article “O.C. sounds off on gun curbs” [Jan. 5],” I perused the description on what makes an assault rifle. I was dismayed to read that the Register allowed a biased description of what is deemed an assault weapon. This description was obtained through the New York Times.

At the bottom of the article, below the collapsible-stock description, the sources of information listed were the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Violence Policy Center. Both of these organizations are rabidly anti-gun.

Why did the Register not seek the opinion of reputable organizations, such as the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association? May I suggest that in the future the Register would research firearm policy from all sides of the issue?

Mike Gleason

Trabuco Canyon

On the average, a person is shot by a firearm every 11 minutes in this nation. More guns and more shootings is a logical conclusion here. The National Rifle Association stance is that more guns are needed to protect our freedom. Sorry, NRA, but this is how I see your freedom:

Sad as it is, this nation lives on fear, which is why we want guns and violence, laws against gay marriage, laws about giving our children a good spanking in public when they need it or punishing our children in school. More guns, more blood, more violence to protect our freedom, our freedom to fear.

William Hepner

Anaheim

Great Park gyrations

Methinks they doth protest too much.

If Councilman Larry Agran and his associate cared more about the citizens of Irvine they purport to represent than about their respective political careers, they should stop whining [“Great Park debate unsettled,” Local, Jan. 8]. If the lobbyist and public-relations firm that have enjoyed the largesse of a no-bid contract have performed so admirably and laid the groundwork, why should they object to a competitive bid process? The “hard” work has already been done by them, according to Agran, so they should be easily able to submit the lowest bid and win the contract fair and square.

Will they do it? Of course not, because it has never been about doing the right thing in the first place. It is about empire building, pure and simple, and now the emperor has no clothes.

Mark Smith

Irvine

Council members Larry Agran and Beth Krom are whining and screaming because taxpayers voted for fiscal responsibility. Upset lobbyist and political consultants are losing their contracts, and now a massive alternative-energy expo? Other people's money is spent to promote Agran's political machine. If you want to understand politics, follow the money.

Agran and company had multiple opportunities to power-share Great Park leadership and squashed it every time. O.C. Supervisor Todd Spitzer is on to their exploits. He, too, wants to know what has happened to $220 million.

I want to find out why these two progressives are so afraid of fairness and transparency.

Barry E. Zanck

Irvine

Watching money moves

The 2012 presidential election taught many lessons.

Perhaps the most expensive lesson was that “People with Money” thought they could buy an election by the sheer amount of cash they spent creating confusion to sway the vote. Sorry, but it was a really good try.

“People with Money” are doubling down and will make the next election even more onerous for citizens to voice their will. State legislatures controlled by “People with Money” are already moving to tighten requirements defining a citizen's status before they can “freely exercise their right to vote.”

“People with Money” only desire to accumulate more, by any means possible. The “commonwealth” in which they live is not even a secondary concern.

America's oligarchy is spreading over the land like kudzu. For the “Good of the Many” perhaps it's time to whack this weed back to a more manageable state.

Dennis E. Hamrick

Westminster

Budget reasonably

The position to lay at the doorstep of the White House is neither lower taxes nor lower spending. It is a balanced budget. Tell the president, “You can have any combination of taxes and spending you want, as long as they match. To help you with this, we're going to vote against any increase in the debt ceiling.”

It's clear that chipping away at the debt doesn't work, so it's time for cold turkey. Stop printing money. Stop borrowing from China. Live within our means.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.